Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



Username Post: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub        (Topic#18874)
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
03-15-16 10:24 AM - Post#204533    

..is that losses to league teams in a traditional one-bid conference are more significant than wins over top 100 on the road. This means, as I see it, that an Ivy tournament is actually LESS likely to produce a 2nd bid (the main benefit according to its supporters) because no wins in an Ivy tournament will be truly significant and a loss could be catastrophic. The fact that we got 2 bids for the women's without an Ivy tournament is due to the fact that Penn had one bad league loss and Princeton had none. If there were a tournament that Princeton wins, does Penn get in with that loss to Cornell? I doubt it. Now no one is sure that the selection committee has the same criteria from year to year, but if this year is a guide, I don't know that a tournament helps us in any way in getting 2 teams in.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-15-16 02:40 PM - Post#204561    
    In response to palestra38

Well, that is theoretically possible. But this year there weren't any sub top 200 teams in the Ivy tournament. Monmouth's problem, and why I don't think they should have even been given much consideration, is that they lost to Manhattan, Army, and Canisius. None of those catastrophic losses could have happened in an Ivy tournament this year. If it happens once, ok, upsets happen. But when you go down 3 times to teams like that, you shouldn't be an at-large. None of the play-in teams had even one loss like any of those.

By definition, losing in the Ivy tournament will hurt the resume of the #1 seed. However, if Yale lost to Princeton in a tournament this year, there wouldn't be much impact on the overall profile. Hopefully, we're headed toward having a regular season champ with an even better profile (which is likely a prerequisite to two bids).

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-15-16 03:21 PM - Post#204566    
    In response to SomeGuy

Yeah, I don't think the tournament is the main factor in getting a 2nd bid. Ivy teams need to play and beat top 50 teams. If they do that on a regular basis, bids will follow in my opinion. Now that will require more than just Harvard bringing in some 4 star type recruits. But I think that will happen too.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-15-16 03:26 PM - Post#204568    
    In response to SomeGuy

Come on, SG. You're going to lose some conference road games, even to bad teams, if you have to play enough of them. Syracuse lost to St. John's, for crying out loud. In any case, if the message to a mid-major is that Monmouth's non-conference and road/neutral performance must also be combined with a near-perfect regular-season conference record, then they're basically saying forget an at-large bid ever. The only way out would be to have a second team in your conference that also has a stellar non-conference record beat you in the conference tourney.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-15-16 05:18 PM - Post#204585    
    In response to SRP

Monmouth didn't necessarily have to be near perfect in conference. They had to be near perfect against teams like Canisius and Manhattan. I don't believe that there is any team in the tournament that would have dumped three games at that level. Princeton certainly didn't. Which is why I think they had a better resume (and were a better team) than Monmouth. Yale didn't either. Those are schools that were a lot closer to perfect than Monmouth.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
03-15-16 05:45 PM - Post#204587    
    In response to SomeGuy

Those 2000 seat bandboxes are hard places to play in---I remember seeing Temple blow one years ago at St. Francis (NY). Even really good teams would blow games playing 2-3 games a week in those kinds of places.

You are right that Monmouth shouldn't have lost 3 of them. But they beat teams that teams at their level NEVER beat on the road, and it wasn't enough. Remember, teams like Notre Dame don't play at places like Monmouth or St Francis. So it's not like top 50 teams really ever are in a position to lose games to sub-200 teams on the road.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:33 AM - Post#204610    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Monmouth didn't necessarily have to be near perfect in conference. They had to be near perfect against teams like Canisius and Manhattan. I don't believe that there is any team in the tournament that would have dumped three games at that level. Princeton certainly didn't. Which is why I think they had a better resume (and were a better team) than Monmouth. Yale didn't either. Those are schools that were a lot closer to perfect than Monmouth.



Andy Glockner explains why you're wrong about Monmouth's road losses:

  • Quote:
Simply put, if you play enough of these kinds of games against teams in the 200–250 range, you’re going to lose some. It’s nearly inevitable if you’re of bubble-team quality. So, it’s therefore implausible to expect Monmouth to go 19–1 or whatever against its league schedule (plus have everything else they accomplished out of league, to boot).



Edited by Chip Bayers on 03-16-16 01:36 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 08:44 AM - Post#204617    
    In response to Chip Bayers

Well, I think that there is a major fallacy in the "Fallacy of 'bad' losses" section. The problem is that Monmouth isn't that good in Pomeroy's ratings. They're in danger against Canisius and Army largely because they're only ranked around 70 in Pomeroy. If they were better, they'd have a better win expectation.

By my count, there were 16 schools ranked ahead of Monmouth on Pomeroy who did not get in. Temple is the only at large who was ranked worse. Would Tulsa have lost those 3 games to sub 200 teams? I don't think so. But if they did have that on their resume, I would leave them out.

Let's turn this a little differently though. Why is Monmouth a better choice for an at large than Princeton? Princeton played those types of games too, and they didn't lose any of them.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 09:02 AM - Post#204620    
    In response to SomeGuy

Princeton didn't beat the teams Monmouth beat. And while Harvard is clearly better (especially when Princeton played there) than the league teams Monmouth lost to, it still is a "bad" loss by major conference team standards.

What it really comes down to is that anyone can lose playing in 1500 seat gyms after traveling 5 hours on a bus. When a team at Monmouth's level can travel to and beat UCLA (when they were ranked), Notre Dame, split with USC and beat Georgetown, the fact that they lost at Canisius and Army after a string of 13 games, only one of which was at home, is not at all hard to explain. Moreover, the MAAC is not a bad conference---losing 3 conference games out of 20 (11 teams, full round robin) is pretty good. They were utterly screwed.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 09:17 AM - Post#204621    
    In response to SomeGuy

It is somewhat interesting that Vegas has both Yale (+5) and Princeton (+3 1/2) as the closest point spread versus all other #12 seeds (Yale) and #6 seeds (Princeton). I believe that the Ivy League teams get 4 pts less than the next closest team with the same seed. Many different reasons regarding establishing point spreads but maybe Vegas thinks more highly of Ivy League teams than the NCAA and NIT committees. Obviously, it will be a good thing for the Ivies if Yale (especially), Princeton and Columbia achieve some level of success this year. Princeton's women success last year and improper seeding may well have helped them this year in getting a bid.

Princeton annihilated FDU earlier in the season and unfortunately FDU took a beating last evening from Florida Gulf Coast. FDU's hope would have been to play Stetson who was 12-21 but lost to Florida Gulf Coast by two in OT at their post-season conference final. Stetson was the 7th seed in their conference - FGCU was #2 seed.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
Postdoc
Posts: 2685

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
03-16-16 09:23 AM - Post#204623    
    In response to bradley

I believe Stetson was not eligible for post season play this year (post-conference tourney). Conference and NCAA dodged a bullet.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:11 AM - Post#204632    
    In response to bradley

  • Quote:
Many different reasons regarding establishing point spreads but maybe Vegas thinks more highly of Ivy League teams than the NCAA and NIT committees.



Maybe!?!

I know people think Vegas lines are some sort of black box voodoo, but they're actually really easy to explain and predict (as I've demonstrated on here many times).

I know I'm alone in saying that if I were committee chair, I would use a blend of resume metrics and actual power metrics (i.e. Vegas-line type metrics), but I just don't understand how it's fair for a team that earned a top 5 or 6 seed to have wildly different odds of beating their opening round opponent than other teams on the same line. There are a number of examples, in recent seasons, of Ivies being closer in the odds than other matchups on the same line due to massive underseedings. Harvard was in the 1.5/2 range vs. Cincy in 2014 before settling around 3 at close. This year, Wichita State should be nearly even (maybe a little worse due to the extra game and travel) with Arizona in the 6-11 matchup and Arizona was UNDERSEEDED as a 6.

The committee is given poor metrics that are even more poorly contextualized. The result is a high variance mess.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:12 AM - Post#204633    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Well, I think that there is a major fallacy in the "Fallacy of 'bad' losses" section. The problem is that Monmouth isn't that good in Pomeroy's ratings. They're in danger against Canisius and Army largely because they're only ranked around 70 in Pomeroy. If they were better, they'd have a better win expectation.

By my count, there were 16 schools ranked ahead of Monmouth on Pomeroy who did not get in. Temple is the only at large who was ranked worse. Would Tulsa have lost those 3 games to sub 200 teams?

I don't think so. But if they did have that on their resume, I would leave them out.



As Andy explains, the odds are yes, Tulsa would have a similar road record against sub-200 teams if forced to play that many games against them.

  • Quote:
Let's turn this a little differently though. Why is Monmouth a better choice for an at large than Princeton? Princeton played those types of games too, and they didn't lose any of them.



Well actually, both would have been better at large candidates than the major dreck who made it. It wasn't a Monmouth vs. Princeton choice that was made. It was crap like Vanderbilt, Tulsa, and Syracuse who were chosen over them.

The major difference between the Monmouth and Princeton resumes is that Monmouth challenged itself more on the road, with exactly one non-conference home game. And Princeton's best road win was what, Columbia? Monmouth had at least 4 road wins better than that - and according to the committee's stated criteria, quality road wins are supposed to earn you super special extra cred. Except when they don't.


 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:42 AM - Post#204636    
    In response to Chip Bayers

I personally enjoyed the true 3 seed Wichita State beating the hell out of Vandy last night (ironically enough, a massive underseed as well).

My biggest issue with Monmouth is that everyone missed the point (which I believe SomeGuy is raising). The troubling part of Monmouth is NOT that it lost three road games that are equivalent to losing to an 80-120ish team at home (depending on which system you use). The bigger issue is that it didn't post the highest efficiency differential in the 19th best conference in the nation (+.13 finished behind tourney winner Iona +.14 and just ahead of a +.11 Siena team that lost at Cornell).

I know all of that is far beyond the comprehension of the committee, but for me, it justifies the decision to keep Monmouth out.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:59 AM - Post#204639    
    In response to mrjames

Good point regarding Monmouth. It is interesting that Monmouth took the mantle as the mid-major team that got screwed by the media and so called experts vs. St. Mary's or Valpariso. Kenpom has St. Mary's as #35 and Valpariso as #37 while Monmouth is #69 and Princeton is #67.

Hopefully, maybe unlikely, the NCAA committee will reconsider their approach as to the selection process.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:12 AM - Post#204640    
    In response to Chip Bayers

Personally, I think Vanderbilt beats Monmouth decisively if they play 100 times. I think Tulsa would beat Monmouth more than they would lose. Syracuse is somewhere in between.

For the record, I'm assuming in all this that the goal is to get the best teams in the at large spots. I think in most cases (and in this case specifically), a lot of mediocre big conference teams are simply better than the top mid majors. There is an argument that Syracuse has had their shots against the best teams and come up short, so why give them another bite at the apple. Give the bite to a mid major who won't have as good a chance of winning. That is reasonable to me, though it could mean, for an example, that UCONN and Kentucky shouldn't have even been in the field in 2014.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:47 AM - Post#204643    
    In response to SomeGuy

"I'm assuming in all this that the goal is to get the best teams in the at large spots"

With that statement, you put yourself firmly in the camp of our esteemed moderator. Of course, he goes even further by suggesting that metrics (i.e., something more than simply winning and losing, who you play and where you play) should figure into the calculus.

I'm admittedly a simple man. I think this should not be overcomplicated. The term "best" to me doesn't mean the team that wins 88 out of 100 or has the highest efficiency rating---it is the team that had the best record against the best competition, home and away. I look purely at the scoreboard. If I have a team that should lose 88 of 100 to a particular team but beat them anyway, I take that team. In my view, metrics as to efficiency or Las Vegas odds, all are predictive and really helpful when you write a blog or bet on games. They should have little influence on who gets into the NCAAs. Just my opinion.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:49 AM - Post#204644    
    In response to SomeGuy

Key words "I think" -- what you think and somebody else thinks are probably two different results. There should be agreed upon metrics in place to make the selection process more credible and would help teams make decisions as to scheduling.

I "think" that the 1st 68 teams rated by Kenpom is more credible than the selection process currently in place but there is probably a better metrics system than just using Kenpom.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 12:06 PM - Post#204647    
    In response to palestra38

Then why don't you want an Ivy tournament? It seems to me that you care about who wins 88 out of 100 (or the most out of 14) except when you don't. Moreover, there isn't anything in the wins and losses that says Monmouth should be in and Tulsa should not. You're basically just announcing that I like team x because they best team y on the road, and ignoring the fact that team z beat more good teams on the road and didn't lose to as many bad teams. How is that deciding it based on the results? Pomeroy gives us a way of adding it all together, but if you go through game by game and really think about it, you get the same result. Tulsa is better than Monmouth because they were better on the court, in terms of results or Pomeroy, this season.

Also, the point of my last post was not that I favor getting the best 68 in the tourney. It was that I assume that to be the endeavor. I might well favor a system that puts fewer majors in the tournament and gives the Monmouths of the world a shot.

As I've said before, I'd dispense with a lot of this arbitrary stuff and play down from 256 (or give 95 teams a bye and let all 351 in). We could still do the selection show and argue about seeding, but everyone would get their shot to prove it on the court in the NCAA tournament.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:20 PM - Post#204652    
    In response to SomeGuy

You misinterpreted what I said. I said that the teams that win the games should go. The Ivy winner after the regualar season won the games. Why should we do a do-over to allow a team that didn't win the games to have a second chance? The main argument that was made for it was that it would increase the chances of 2 tournament teams. The selection of Princeton in the women's tournament and snubbing of Monmouth shows this theory is false...indeed, it appears to be the reverse.

And how does Tulsa get in compared with Monmouth? Tulsa lost to Ark Little Rock and Oral Roberts, while beating only Oklahoma State out of conference on the road (like many, Tulsa played 10 of 12 nonconference games at home). Monmouth clearly deserved to go over Tulsa.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:45 PM - Post#204654    
    In response to palestra38

Because Tulsa beat two ranked teams, including one on the road. Monmouth beat one. Tulsa beat twice as many tournament teams, and that wasn't purely based on opportunity -- both teams were over .500 in those games. Yes, Tulsa had a couple of bad losses. However, those losses weren't nearly as bad as Monmouth's three worst losses. In regard to your road point, you seem to just be giving Monmouth credit for challenging itself with its OOC schedule. I guess I don't see why that is at all dispositive. All we can do is evaluate the teams in the games they played, and Tulsa played better, and did it against a tougher schedule overall. Monmouth can't help their conference, of course, but Tulsa can't help it either. They've already got a tough schedule whatever they do out of conference. Why should they be expected to play the same sort of OOC schedule that a team in a much easier conference should play? Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:45 PM - Post#204655    
    In response to palestra38

To be fair, that's not my language, it's the selection criteria language:

"The committee selects the 36 best teams not otherwise automatic qualifiers for their
conference to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams
the committee may select from one conference;"

(Emphasis from the original document)

Picking teams based on wins and losses alone is vastly inferior to picking teams based on all available information. Again, this is not a baseless hypothesis, but one that has substantial quantitative evidence behind it (most notably: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/evid... ).

If the selection criteria said "best resume" or "best wins" or "best (anything)," I'd have to accept that the committee is supposed to pursue something other than the best 36 teams. And for me, that goes far beyond just wins and losses from a sample of 30 games.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:56 PM - Post#204657    
    In response to mrjames

Your definition of "best" is almost certainly different from theirs. I think SG is correct that in their view, Tulsa played as hard as a schedule as Monmouth and Monmouth's conference losses were what did them in....not efficiency metrics or a likely point spread between the teams. If that were the case, as you pointed out, there were a number of teams whose numbers indicate that in a head to head matchup, they'd be favorites over both and did not get in.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 02:10 PM - Post#204659    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule.



This is some quality comedy.


 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 02:10 PM - Post#204660    
    In response to palestra38

Well, to be clear, both definitions of "best" would have left Monmouth out.

I'm not going to argue about what this particular committee's definition of best was, because it was the least defined definition of best that we've seen in some time. The failure of this selection committee was not the normal one of focusing FAR too much on one metric, but rather having no consistent theme (aside from picking power conference schools) at all.

Not all selection committees are created equal. Some have focused on Top 50 Ws. Others focused on NCSOS. Some have been decently kind to mids. Others have been extremely punitive (this one). Some have seemed laser-focused on the RPI. Others have shown evidence of looking at more advanced metrics. So, I'm not prepared to assume this is the new normal just yet.

For me, the system didn't fail because of Monmouth. And it didn't fail because of St. Mary's, San Diego St. and Valpo. It failed because it lacked consistency. There was such a diversity of profiles among the bubble mids that the only way to keep them all out was to explicitly pick against them. There was no other consistent argument that could be made.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-16-16 02:37 PM - Post#204664    
    In response to mrjames

Consistency is definitely the real problem. Calipari said the same thing in his rant over seeding. When the 10 people change year to year the emphasis on different criteria morph with them.

To be clear, the 68 team field is not about the best teams, no matter your definition of "best". It's about equal access. The at-large bids are focused on the "best" teams and that process is clearly open for debate.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-16-16 03:11 PM - Post#204666    
    In response to PennFan10

I agree 100% that the Inconsistency of the criteria espoused by the committee even after the fact is bad. But it is the unstated consistency of screwing the mid-majors that is appalling.

 
20Penn14 
Senior
Posts: 364

Reg: 02-26-12
03-16-16 03:24 PM - Post#204668    
    In response to SRP

How do you think the affiliation that each member of the selection committee plays into the selections. Looking at this committee, they are affiliated with Oklahoma, LSU, BYU, Michigan St, Stanford, Creighton, Duke, UNC Ashville, Ohio, and Northeastern.

Would having a committee with fewer Power 5 schools, and more schools from smaller conferences change everything?

And did the fact that someone from Columbia was on the womens selection committee increase the odds of #2bidivy and their seedings?

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 03:46 PM - Post#204669    
    In response to Chip Bayers

Chip -- I think you might be misunderstanding me pulling that sentence out of context. I don't mean that Monmouth should have played a harder OOC schedule than they did -- I can't imagine they can do any more than they did (not their fault UCLA stunk). What I meant (which I thought was clear, but isn't as funny) is that Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule than a team like Tulsa.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 04:14 PM - Post#204672    
    In response to SomeGuy

You really think that this schedule:
Central Ark
Wichita State
Ohio U
Ind.State
S. Carolina (L)
Ark-Little Rock(L)
@Okl St
Oral Roberts (L)
Iona
@Missouri St
Ore St (L)
Northern Ariz

8-4, only 2 away games


is better than:

@UCLA
@USC (L)
@Drexel
Notre Dame (at Orlando)
Dayton (L) (at Orlando)
USC (at Orlando)
@Georgtown
Wagner
@ Rutgers
@Cornell
@Army(L)

8-3, only 1 home game


Seriously?

 
penn64 
Freshman
Posts: 47

Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada
Reg: 11-24-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 07:23 PM - Post#204682    
    In response to palestra38

Isn't the bottom line, the one bid league is foolish for having a tournament. Rarely, if ever, will more than 1 team make the tournament. If the regular season winner doesn't also win the tournament, that team can forget about the tournament.

But money talks, and ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc. have lots of it as well as lots of stations/places to put on "events", so college presidents and AD's will go for the cash. Impressionable kids can be led to believe it's for them (exposure) but it's the money honey.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 08:06 PM - Post#204688    
    In response to penn64

Yes indeed---that was exactly my point. This year is proof that (at least if selection criteria remain the same--something that is questionable) one bid leagues should not have tournaments.

 
section110 
Masters Student
Posts: 847

Loc: south jersey
Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:23 PM - Post#204732    
    In response to palestra38

Amen.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:00 PM - Post#204743    
    In response to palestra38

No, I don't, and I never said anything that would suggest I thought that was true.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
03-16-16 11:25 PM - Post#204750    
    In response to SomeGuy

Vanderbilt and Tulsa really went out of their way to justify the committee's biases.


 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-18-16 04:25 AM - Post#204867    
    In response to Chip Bayers

It's probably stupid to moralize these things, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching the hungry Shockers destroy the entitled-seeming Commodores. It was like an Aesop's fable.

 
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

7872 Views




Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.267 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 08:35 PM
Top